On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:37:09 PM UTC+1, Lukas Eder wrote: The unit-vs-integration-test debate is a religious one... I can see > how you don't want to go down the integration-test path... >
My opinion is that I know better what I need than some framework someone else designed and that frameworks should help me solve problems in the way I feel best rather than limiting my options without a good reason. In this case here, I would like to hear "I'll support some form of dependency injection in jOOQ 3.0". You already pass Configuration almost everywhere, it wouldn't be a huge change to let it create all instances (instead of just a few of them). The current situation is frustrating. jOOQ almost does what I need but often, there is just a final / package private that prevents me from solving my problem. Instead of investing 5-10 minutes to solve a trivial problem, I have to spend a couple of days. I can see how this design makes your life easier :-) But for me, your API feels ... hostile. I hope you understand. I could maintain my own branch but it's effort I would like to avoid. Especially when we talk about a "little" patch that adds DI to jOOQ - that would be a huge beast and it would break for every release that you do. Regards, A. Digulla -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
